JUDGMENT 1. -The Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, convicted, the appellant of the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life by his judgment dated February 13, 1974. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31-3-1973, Karamchand, the father of the deceased Arjan Das, along with Bachan Singh, Mohan Singh and Pyara Singh were working in the threshing, floor of Bhagat Singh. They were taking out Sarrso. At about 11.00 or 11.30, a.m., Karamchand (P,W. 1) heard the Roal of his son Arjan Das Mar Diya","Mar Diya". The Rola attracted him and he observed that the accused Prem Kumar was inflicting knife blows on his son Arjan Das, Within his sight the knife was inflicted by the accused Prem Kumar to Arjan Das on the left side of the chest. All of them, then rushed to the scene of occurrence. Thereupon, the accused ran away. Arjan Das was lying on the ground and bleeding from his wounds and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Kishan Lal and Pritam Singh arrived at the crime scene. The occurrence was narrated to them. After some time Sohan Singh, Harbant Singh, Kishanlal and Pritam Singh brought the accused Prem Kumar after apprehending him. As stated by Karam Cband at the trial, his further version at the trial is that he along with Sohan Singh, Harbant Singb, Jaswanr Sirngh, Gurubux Singh took the accused to the Police Station and produced him there and he lodged a verbal report Ex. P/4. It was also reported by him in in first information report that when Kishanlal appeared at the scene of occurrence, he disclosed that the accused met them at the house and told them that Arjan Das considered himself to be a Gunda, so he has been killed. Thereafter he, was apprehended and was brought at the place of occurrence. Karamchand also stated in the report that 10-12 days prior lo the occurrence, the accused had told him that the deceased used to loiter around the house of the accused and as the accused has got a young sister, so the accused told him that he should mend his ways, else he will be dealt with properly. According to Karamchand, he gave necessary direction to the son Arjan Das. On the report Ex. According to Karamchand, he gave necessary direction to the son Arjan Das. On the report Ex. P/4, Tribhuvan Singh, S.H.O. (P.W. 5) registered the case under Sec. 302, I.P.C. He arrested the accused vide memo Ex. P/7. Thereafter he visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. P/8 and site notes Et P/8 and Fard Surat Hal Lash Ex. P/9 and Panchnama Ex. P/10. The blood stained earth and simple earth were also seized from the spot vide memo Ex. P/11 and Ex. P/12 Dr. M. S. Bhatia conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and the blood stained clothes were seized from the dead body memo Ex. P/13. While in custody, the accused on 8.4.1973 gave information in respect of the knife and in pursuance of that information got the knife Ex. 4 recovered vide memo Ex. P/14. As the investigating officer had suspicion of the presence of blood on the knife, the knife was packed and sealed and was sent for chemical examination. The chemical examination revealed presence of blood, but as the blood was insufficient for the Serological examination, it was not sent for that Rumination. Investigation was conducted from the witnesses and after completion on investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused and the accused was ultimately tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. 3. On reading over the charge under Sec. 302,IPG., the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in all examined six witnesses, namely. Karamchand. complainant (P.W. 1), eye witnesses Pyara Singh and Mohan singh, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 respectively, Kishan Lal (P.W. 4), Tribhuvan Singh, S.H.O. [P.W. 5) and Dr. M.S. Bhatia (P.W. 6). The statement of the accused was recorded, & a which be denied the prosecution case, and he stated that he had left the village at ) about 7.00, a.m., for selling cloth and returned back at 5.00, p.m. At that time the police was present. The police after apprehending him, took him to the police nation. In defence, the accused examined Desh Raj (D.W. 1) and Dr. S. M. Gupta (D.W. 2). 4. The police after apprehending him, took him to the police nation. In defence, the accused examined Desh Raj (D.W. 1) and Dr. S. M. Gupta (D.W. 2). 4. The learned Sessions Judge, believing the testimony of Karam Chand, the father of the deceased, and the testimony of Kishan Lal, the maternal uncle of the deceased, relating to the extra judicial confession, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. In respect of the circumstance relating to recovery of blood stained knife, the learned Sessions Judge observed that it cannot be held beyond all possible doubt that the knife in question could cause the injury deep into the aorta looking to the site of the penetrating wound and the size of the knife Ex. 4. Dis-satisfied with the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this 'appeal. 5. We have heard Shri Thanchand Mehta, assisted by Shri R. R. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Niyazuddin Khan, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. 6. The success of the prosecution case depends on the credibility of the testimony of Karam Chand (P.W. 1), an eye witness of the occurrence and Kishan Lal (P.W. 4), the witness before whom, it is said that the accused made an extra judicial confession. As already stated, except the formal witnesses, the prosecution has examined only four witnesses in this case. P.W. 5 Tribhuvan Singh, S.H.O. and P.W. 6 Shri (Dr.) M.S. Bhatia, are the formal witnesses. Out of the first four witnesses, the two witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Pyara Singh and P.W. 3 Mohan Singh have not at all supported the prosecution and they have turned hostile. Thus as stated above, there remains the testimony of P.W. 1 Karamchand and P.W. 4 Kishanlal. 7. According to P.W.l. Karamchand, at the time of the occurrence he was at the threshing floor of Bhagat Singh along with Bachan Singh, Mohan Singh and Pyara Singh. He was at that time in the service of Bhagat Singh. When he heard the alarm of his son Arjan Das, all the four were attracted towards that alarm and rushed to the scene of the occurrence. According to this witness he had observed the accused inflicting the knife blow on Arjan Das. The presence of this witness has been assailed by Shri Thanchand Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. When he heard the alarm of his son Arjan Das, all the four were attracted towards that alarm and rushed to the scene of the occurrence. According to this witness he had observed the accused inflicting the knife blow on Arjan Das. The presence of this witness has been assailed by Shri Thanchand Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. He urged that the evidence of P.W.l. Kramchand, if viewed in the light of the first information and the statement of P.W. 4 Krishanlal, as well as in the light of the statement of Mohan Singh, it would be evident that P.W.l. Karamchand could not be present at the threshing floor of Bhagat Singh, as he was not in the service of Bhagat Singh at that time, and the testimony of this witness is not of that sterling worth, which can be accepted on its face. Mr. Mehta has submitted that the witness has prevaricated on material points, particularly on the point of production of the accused at the police station and on the point as to whether the report was lodged at the police station or it was recorded at the spot. With regard to the presence of Karamchand at the spot, the statement of Mohah Singh and Kishan Lal are material; Mohan Singh (P.W. 3.) is the son of Bhagat Singh. He has stated that Karamchand had never been their servants P.W. 4 Kishan Lal is the real brother-in-law (the loser) of P. W. 1 Karamchand. He has deposed in Cross-examination that Karamchand had never been the servant of Bhagat Singh, nor he had come for any job on that day at the field of Bhagat Singh and he further stated that he cannot say. where he had gone. Bhagat Singh has not been, examined. The statement of Karamchand, thus, is rendered unbelievable if viewed in the light of the statements of Kishanlal and Mohan Singh. As already stated Pyara Singh and Mohan Singh have not supported Karamchand and Bachan Singh, the fourth witness has not been examined. The very reason for which Karamchand claims to be present at the spot, stands negatived by the testimony of Mohan Singh and Kishanlal. The testimony of Karamchand is further unworthy of credence in view of the contradictory and divergent statements, which he had given in court. A verbal report (Ex. The very reason for which Karamchand claims to be present at the spot, stands negatived by the testimony of Mohan Singh and Kishanlal. The testimony of Karamchand is further unworthy of credence in view of the contradictory and divergent statements, which he had given in court. A verbal report (Ex. P/4) was lodged by Karan chand at the Police Station, Padampur, and the accused Prem Kumar was produced, as he was taken in the Jeep. These facts find mention in the report (Ex. P/4). The witness, contrary to it, has stated that the police did not scribe the report at the police station. It was written at the village and he put his thumb mark on the report not at the police station, but at the village. As regards the production of the accused, there are contradictions in the statement of Karamchnad. In examination-in-chief he stated that the accused was produced at the police station and was arrested by the police, but in cross-examination he stated that the police took the accused along with it from the spot. With regard to visiting the police station in connection with lodging the report, a wavering statement has been given by him. In cross-examination, he first stated that when he reached near his son he had became unconscious and he regained conscious when the police arrived there at about 4.00 p. m. The police was brought by Sohan singh in Jeep. But then he stated that not only Sohan Singh brought the police, but he also went with him and brought the police. The version regarding extra judicial confession stated by him in the first information report, was not supported by him in his examination-in-chief. In the first information report, Karamchand stated that when the accused was brought at the spot after being apprehended, Kishanlal told that the accused met them at his house and divulged that Arjan Das was considering himself as Gunda, so he has been killed. In the examination-in-chief Karam Chand (P. W. 1.) has stated that when the accused was brought at the spot by Sohan Singh, Harbant Singh, Kishan Lal and Pritam Singh, they did not disclose any thing to him. He has not supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of knife. In the examination-in-chief Karam Chand (P. W. 1.) has stated that when the accused was brought at the spot by Sohan Singh, Harbant Singh, Kishan Lal and Pritam Singh, they did not disclose any thing to him. He has not supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of knife. He has stated that the police recovered the knife next day from the house of the accused after making a search, An omission was put to him in his committing court's statement Ex. D/L In that statement it is not stated that Kishanlal, Pritam Singh, Harbant Singh and Sohan Singh brought the accused at the spot after apprehending him. The witness replied that he does not remember why it had not been stated by him in his committing court's statement. Thus, considering the fact that the statement of Karamchand does not get any corroboration from the two eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, rather they do not help the prosecution and the third eye witness has not been examined and considering the fact that the status as servant has been denied by the two witnesses and further considering the prevaricatious nature of his evidence, in our opinion, it would be unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of Karamchand. 8. As regards the testimony of Kishan Lal it may be mentioned that there is the solitary statement of Kishanlal with regard to the alleged confessional statement of the accused. The accused was apprehended by Pritam Singh, Harbant Singh, Mohan Singh and Kishan Lal, when they went to the house of the accused and at that time, on being asked by Kishanlal, the accused told that Arjan Das was involved in Gundaism, so he has killed him today. Pritam Singh and Harbant Singh have not been examined by the prosecution. With regard to extra judicial confession, no question has been put to Mohan Singh. Thus, Mohan Singh (P.W. S') has not supported the prosecution. Further Karamchand contradicts Kishan Lal in his court statement though in the first information report, as already stared above, he; made mention of the fact that an extra judicial confession was made by the accused 'before Kishan Lal. Apart from the above state of evidence, some contradiction have also appeared in the statement of Kishan Lal, which are material and his very visit to the place of occurrence, is rendered doubtful. Apart from the above state of evidence, some contradiction have also appeared in the statement of Kishan Lal, which are material and his very visit to the place of occurrence, is rendered doubtful. In his examination-in-chief.' he stated that he was inside the house of Bhagt Singh and heard the cries from towards Chhanad (pond), but in cross-examination he gave a different version, when a question was out to him, whether Bhagat Singh was there inside in the house or not, the witness replied that he cannot' say as he had simply made a call That shows that he was not inside the house and at the entrance he heard the Rola. For what purpose he had visited the house of Bhagat Singh, a question was put to : him with reference to his police statement. According to the witness, he had gone to the house of Bhagat Singh for taking his wages, as he had ploughed his field. Two days wages were due from him, but this fact did not find mention in his police statement Ex. D/2. On being asked he stated that the police did not put a question to him, so he did not make mention of that fact in his police statement Ex. D/2. Had he visited the house of Bhagat Singh then, in our opinion, this would have gone in the statement of the witness, recorded by the police that in connection with jg obtaining two days wages, he had visited the house of Bhagat Singh. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he asked Karamchand as to who had killed Arjan Das, then Karam Chand revealed that Prem Kumar had killed Arjan Das with knife. But that does not find mention in his police statement Ex. D/2 and his reply is the same that the police did not ask him. Thus, with regard to his exact place; of presence and the purpose, for which he visited the house of Bhagat Singh, the evidence of Kishan Lal suffers from infirmity and besides that Karamchand contra dicts the testimony of Kishan Lal and other witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution so, in our opinion, with regard to the statement made by the witness Kishanlal, it would he unsafe to place any reliance on it. These are very prominent l features of the ease that relating to the types of evidence, there are only the solitary I statements of each nature of evidence, without any corroborative evidence and whatever corroborative evidence has been produced, the same has not supported the prosecution. 9. There remains only one another type of evidence on record, that is, circumstantial evidence relating to the recovery of knife found to be stained with blood. Even if we hold that the knife Ex. 4 was recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused, which has been found stained with blood, still on the basis of this sole circumstance, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. With regard to the recovery of knife, there is the solitary statement of the investigating officer. The Motbirs have not been examined and : the evidence of P.W. 1 Karam Chand and P.W. 4 Kishan Lal does not support the version given by the investigating officer and there is further material on record on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge has also expressed an opinion that injury No. 2 cannot be the result of knife Ex. 4. All that apart, as already stated, this circumstances by itself is in-sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of offence. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to an acquittal of the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the conviction and the sentence of the appellant for the offence under Sec. 302. T.P.C., are set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence. He is already on bail, so he need not surrender to his. bail bonds. His bail bonds are discharged.Appeal allowed - Appellant acquitted. *******